Talk:History of the filioque controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Father through the Son??[edit]

Hi, I have a question, I have a Catholic theology teacher in my school and we've talk about the what other people (i.e. media) call "the unity between the Greek and Latin Churches". We talk about some certain issues about the main reason of the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orhodox Churches and how to resolve it and one of the things that we've talk about was the "Filioque" controversy. I ask him that what if they only replace it with through the Son or per Filium (sorry if i have wrong latin translation) like what St. John of Damascus (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book 1, Chapter 8)and Tertullian (Against Praxeas 4:1) wrote. [I didn't tell to him before that John and Tertullian wrote it but I tell him that the Orthodox wanted to replace it with per Filium as said by John Breck in 2001] My Theo teacher said that the teaching "Father through the Son" is a teaching similar to Sabellius teaching of Modalistic Monarchianism. I was just wondering that if Tertullian, John of Damascus and other Church fathers who accept the doctrine of "through the Son", does it mean that, according to what my theo teacher said to me, they accept the Sabellian doctrine of Modalistic Monarchianism? or it is just my Catholic theology teacher has his own different point of view of either the Trinity or the Eastern Orthodox Church? no offense :) Ernstkohl (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Testament Trinity[edit]

@Editor2020: Yes, that icon you reinstated to the article depicts the Old Testament Trinity (see: Holy Trinity Icon#Old Testament Trinity). It has nothing to do with the Filioque controversy, because it is about the New Testament Trinity. This was already discussed at Talk:Filioque#Icon. Please, think again about your edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of the Filioque controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote, further history revolving around Saint Peters basilica.[edit]

The footnote you had under church fathers has disappeared @Veverve:. --H.A Elysian (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC) H.A Elysian[reply]

@H.A Elysian: What do you mean? Veverve (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: There was a foot note for further information in church fathers, about elaborating on the history of to Peters basilica, to come back and edit later. I assumed you put it there?
--H.A Elysian (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)H.A Elysian[reply]
No, and I still have trouble understanding what you are referring to. Veverve (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

@H.A Elysian: the quotes you keep wanting to add rely on unreliable sources as I told you on your user talk page. None are historical sources, and for Fleury WP:AGE MATTERS. Veverve (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:. With regards to the the age matters article...Fleury fits perfectly into that definition. For Pope leo, I quite literally used a Catholic encyclopedia by numerous catholic scholars that is on the page for Pope Leo III. Is that page now unreliable too? I also used the first-hand document from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consul­tation in 2003.
@H.A Elysian: Fleury is 4 centuries old and writes centuries after the facts, so it cannot be used.
I also used the first-hand document from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consul­tation in 2003: yes, not a RS in History (an likely a form of primary source), which is why it cannot be used for such claims.
The only RS you used is Aschbach, Joseph von.
Veverve (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Isn't Siecienski even worse? It was written a millennium later and all of the quotes in the "Church Fathers" section use it. --H.A Elysian (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)H.A Elysian[reply]

@H.A Elysian: Siecienski is a university professor in this field of study, and wrote in the 21st century, so his work is reliable on those points unless otherwise specified.
You wrote With regards to the the age matters article...Fleury fits perfectly into that definition; I interpret it as you explaining that Fleury fell under the following part of tha article and can thus be used: "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing." However, as I wote, Fleury is far removed from the events he describes. Veverve (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Not going to trouble you anymore after this: appreciate your edits. Fleury was a pretty big deal? Histoire ecclésiastique is usually taken quite seriously. He was also scholar in the field; and an ecclesiastical lawyer. What makes him not reliable and Siecienski more so? --H.A Elysian (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)H.A Elysian[reply]

@H.A Elysian: What makes Fleury not reliable is WP:AGE MATTERS. Some 19th-century sources are still accepted on WP, even some from late 18th-century; but the 17th-century is too far when it comes to a discipline such as History. This quote from Pope John VIII might have been an hoax, with Historians having only a consensus about the veracity of the quote since the 19th or 20th century. Siecienski is an academic trained in the current customs of the discipline and has access to the work of his peers both old and contemporary; therefore, his work normally reflects the most recent research in the field. Veverve (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well clearly you know a lot more about the topic than me, so edit away. Cheers --H.A Elysian (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)H.A Elysian[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_filioque_controversy&oldid=1202733974"